Was this sanctioned, and by whom?

Willem Rivet

Willem Rivet

Artisan
Obviously, those with titles are able to take extra-legal actions when they feel it necessary. Sybil McNulty was tried and executed for Necromancy, and I was not allowed to stand witness. This would be common practice, except I was not allowed to speak for her, and she was promised a fair trial by our Sheriff. I would argue the inability to call for witnesses predisposes one to a guilty verdict.

I will not question the actions of my betters without cause. I have no more cause if there is a name attached to this decision: who found Sybil McNulty guilty without allowing a witness to speak for her, causing the Sheriff's words to ring untrue?

Also, who do I owe for inevitably slandering a noble, and how much is the fine?

-Joe
 
I am curious to see where this goes... Thank you for bringing this to the attention of those who may not know what went on.

In Service,
Cyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
*Manic Laughter*

-Banradi Irani Moduri Newberry
 
Sounds like you don't know how nobles work. If a noble guy sees you do sumtin bad or if dey got a good reason ta tink you done sumtin bad, dey can dole out punishment. Sheriff can say all day dere's gonna be a trial, but if deir noble boss says udderwise, den da noble wins.

Why do you tink "dose wit titles" gotta answer ta you anyway? Dere was a necromancer, now dere ain't. Problem solved.

GRONK
 
Gronk-

While yes the noble has every right within the law to see to it that anyone breaking the law in Wayside is brought to justice- and necromancy is very much against the law, and should be dealt with in the spectrum of our justice. I believe the issue Merchant Smith brought to attention was that a promise was made and even if the person giving it had no right to, which I would argue, an accountability for who acted on this matter and what exactly happened in not unreasonable.

Nobles have absolutely all the rights to act as they see fit within Wayside. It is their privilege and their burden. Their burden is to see to it that laws are followed yes - but they also have the burden to the people to keep them informed and a part of the process. And a noble of worth would take the word of a sheriff who promised a trial and see it happen - even if the end was their choice of justice as is allowed by law.

Nobles are a not above the law- they are the force of law. They CAN do as they like- but they SHOULD do what is right and good for the people above all else.

Please understand- I am in no way speaking ill of the noble who made this ruling- they acted within their rights. I am simply saying they could have taken the time and effort to allow the sheriff's word to ring true to the people of Wayside and still had their noble rights seen to.

If this is considered slandering a noble please inform me of my fine and whom to pay.

Yours In Service,
Cyn



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cyn,

You are incorrect, a noble has no duty or requirement of any sort to explain themselves, or make themselves known. It's not a process, it's a discernment by someone who has the right and duty to make such decisions and any suggestion of a "process" being involved only exists to suggest that common folk have some right of review, or oversight. To put it simply while you may wish it otherwise this is not true. Despite the misunderstanding of commoners, it is not common practice to allow witnesses to attempt to sway the noble making the judgement if the guilt is clear, to hear from every interested party in such cases would be a misuse of valuable time.

Frankly given the general attitude of the adventuring community, and their tendency to act illegally and in a unilateral fashion, if I was to council whomever made the decision I may well suggest they do not respond to this inquiry.

At any rate the proper process if you have a concern is to bring it to a magistrate, privately, rabble rousing in public with suggestions that you'll simply pay any fines is unseemly and not the proper attitude. The magistrates have both the standing and duty of oversight and while they may not tell you the details, if they respond that all was in proper order I highly suggest you accept that answer.

Please also note the correct laws to be concerned with here range from Disrespecting a noble, which is usually, but not exclusively, a fine. However if the rhetoric rises to a higher level you may find yourself in the realm of sedition, with is rarely punished with a simple fine.

Regards,

Lord Enan Bluewater
 
If the common people asking for Transparency and Trust and Truth is considered Sedition- we are very close to Tyranny.

-Cyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I appreciate the kind words Joe however the matter was quite private until this public mention.

It was all a simple misunderstanding and I will continue to serve this fine Duchy with the fine products the McNultys have to offer--especially in these troubled times, the same as when they happened previously.

Sybil McNulty
 
Huh. Me, I'm just fine watching this happen in public. If you can't have a rousing fight over the nature of speech, respect, and competence of your leaders out where anyone can join in, well, that's just stagnation creepin' in. Where I come from, a tribe that starts doin' things like that for 'dignity's sake' isn't long for this world- especially in the realm of dreams, where your thoughts are shared with all. The leadership ossifies without new blood coming in and clawing their way up the ranks anytime some middle manager fouls up or pisses off the chief or the wrong warrior- and a tribe without strong leaders is vulnerable.

Gives me hope for the future of Wayside.

-Mordagh.
 
Cyn, da nobles don't gotta answer ta you or to da commoners fer every decision dey make. Dis ain't about tyranny and it ain't about some necromancer's dignity - da leaders made a decision dat you ain't got nuttin' to do wit. Dey ain't gonna ask you fer permission every time dey enforce da law.

A good chieftain gives good orders, but dey don't always gotta explain 'em. A good warrior trusts deir leader ta make da right decisions and follows 'em into battle even if dey don't know all da details.

GRONK
 
Gronk- you are right- however, asking questions about what happened publicly is not sedition. It is asking for clarity and truth. If a promise was made - it should be addressed. If a noble cannot take a few moments of their time WHEN something comes to the public arena to address it - well I suppose that is on the noble. Because as with all things it is with in their right as nobility to remain as silent as they wish.

However - when things are made public and the people ask for clarification- refusal seems petty and unnecessary. No one accused anyone of anything- just asked for clarification. That should never be an issue.

I follow orders and I trust my leaders- I see no issue is asking for clarification. I see no issue in a noble being asked basic questions about how and why they did their JOB. Is seems like a way to keep chains of communication open so miscommunication and misunderstanding do not occur.

Trust is a two way street. If it is not... Again we walk in dangerous waters...

This is not a heat of the moment type situation like a warrior in battle- this is a time communication and trust would go a long way.

In Service,
Cyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pretty clear answer already. Dere was a crime, nobles punished 'em. Shouldn't really matter ta you who done it or how or why unless yer involved. Like Lord Enan said, you got a problem, take it to a magistrate. Don't be all, "oh nobles don't actually gotta say anyting but if dey don't dat's really petty." Because dat's really petty.

GRONK
 
In the interests of transparency and disclosure that the populace are apparently so eager to demand, allow the record to show that Miss Avacyn "Iron Rose" was previously put to death for physically breaking into a building in order to disrupt the Ducal Council and influence its outcome.

High Magistrate Amy Hale
Royal Knight under His Majesty Kaarl Grimlock
 
Yes High Magistrate -

Almost 2 years ago I was executed publicly for doing that. And yes if in the same situation I would do it again. And again and again...

That act is a point of pride for me, high magistrate. Feel free to bring it up any time.

My actions were done for the good of the people - and if any wish to argue it they may. However I broke the law and I took my punishment all the way to the circle for it.
Many witnessed it.

Now may I ask - why my public execution record was needed in this? I have no issue just not sure why?

Gronk-

My apologies if my questioning came across as petty. It was not my intention.

I simply backed up the original person in their questions and their right to question. It was never an act to cause more - sedition.

Mistress McNulty- I am glad it was only a misunderstanding.

In Service,
Cyn



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I had hoped to remind you that your past history of fomenting the adventurers to insurrection has not been forgotten; however, if you prefer to hold onto your sense of pride in your criminal history, by all means continue digging this hole. I'm sure Oliver will be interested to see how deep you can go.

However, not everyone is so eager to have you air their dirty laundry in such a public arena. I believe the Guildmistress has expressed a preference that hers in particular no longer needs discussion.

I am not familiar with the details of this case; however, it seems as though a request was made for a trial, which you are assuming was not granted. However, even when a trial is granted, there is no guarantee that such proceedings be public. You have no call to assume that the nobles erred either in judgement, or in procedure for reaching it. This matter was already closed as soon as Lord Barrister Bluewater informed you of the laws this morning.

This is all the time I am willing to devote to explaining the tenets of our legal system to you, Cyn. Please take the time to learn the laws of the country you purport to serve.

High Magistrate Amy Hale
Royal Knight under His Majesty Kaarl Grimlock
 
High Magistrate,

High Magistrate Oliver and I have actually spoken on my actions that night - I believe he knows where I stand.

The question was not about laws, High Magistrate but the people's right to ask questions and not be looked at being rabble rousers. Yes no one has to answer any question asked- but the person asking is not at fault for anything.

I do not actually care what the supposed crime was - perhaps that was lost in this.

I will say it again- I do not care what the supposed crime was.

I care that people be allowed to question and ask for clarification - that the trust be two way.

I care that there be open communication whenever possible with all members of Wayside. ALL Members.

I am sorry if my original meaning was lost- it was simply to show support to those who would ask for clarification.

Yours In Service,
Cyn



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Too all those who are riled up at the moment. Let me just state that I happened to be in town working on some very exciting notations and a bibliography for an upcoming novel about the lifestyle of the wonderful Duchess Fairfax and the history of the Buckland Duchy. A side project of mine when not recording historical records of the great and glorious Ducal council - I like to write novels of a historical nature. Trivial facts are so very nourishing to a man like me. I happened to be around to witness some of this and as I tend to do write it down. I am sure scribes of the Duchy kept proper paperwork but as I am dreaming right now I thought I would chime in.

Sir Okna Mountaintusk under clear and irrefutable evidence judged the necromancer guilty and then performed an execution which as a Knight of the Duchy was well within his purview. She now wishes for the matter to be forgotten about as it would be bad for the business of her guild to dwell on necromancy charges as few good citizens of our land would buy wares from them if they knew about the issues. So I would suggest obeying her wishes.

I am no student of the law and in fact know very little compared to a learned magistrate as I am a simple scribe. But my understandings are that no one has commited sedition yet although perhaps a few of you are leaning that direction. There is never anything wrong with wanting to know who presided over a matter - in fact that is why scribes by the hundreds work for the kingdom. Also most if not all nobles are happy to stand by their judgments. But it is not ok to question and disagree with the judgements reached or the punishments handed out. If you truly feel a noble is out of line then their is always a noble above them to speak with about the matter. Most nobles atleast one day a month will listen to any petitioner and such things are great topics for such times- also letters work wonderfully. Even the King who long may he reign, can be brought to task by the Ducal Council if matters escalate in a truly terrible manner once more. With that said you better have proof if your going to make accusations as slander and libel are both real crimes! The truth I feel that we have the least tyrannical of any of the nations on this continent. Ofcourse nobles are not perfect and I think few that I know would pretend to be so.... And I know a lot of the nobility of our land.

Also may I state Joe- Joey- Joeseph- it is never socially acceptable nor wise to offer to pay for a crime and then commit it- in fact offering to pay a fine for a crime could in fact be a crime depending on the interpretation of the law used. So think before you speak. But suffice to say Sir Okna Mountaintusk is the noble who dealt with the Sybil situation.

Harley Jackayn
Royal Scribe
 
Thank you Harley Jackayn.

That is appreciated for it's clarity.

In Service,
Cyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thank you, Scribe Jackayn. I appreciate your attention to detail, and your advice. As a point of clarification, it was my understanding that my words would already be treated as slander, therefor I was offering to pay the fine for my words of my own accord, not to denote a future event.

Guildmaster McNulty, consider the matter dropped. I am glad to see that you are still among us.

-Joseph
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top